With the
space shuttle fleet retiring this year, NASA has been working on future
spacecraft that will be used to take astronauts into orbit and possibly to the
ISS, the moon, and beyond. Lockheed Martin, the company developing the Orion
spacecraft, leads the future spacecraft development. Lockheed has now
officially unveiled the first of the Orion spacecraft at
its new Space Operations Simulation Center (SOSC).

The new SOSC is a massive building in Colorado that is situated on a 1,700-foot
deep bedrock formation and then isolated from local seismic disturbance. The
facility encompasses 41,000 square feet and was constructed to be green with
the LEED gold rating for efficiency and energy savings. The landscape is made
with native vegetation to conserve water.

The facility is currently being used to support the integrated testing of
Orion's Relative Navigation system including the STORRM system that is the
navigation and docking system that Orion will use. The STORRM system will be
tested aboard shuttle mission STS-134 and is one of the major systems that has
to be tested before the Orion can attempt an orbital test flight, which is
currently set for 2013. Lockheed claims that the SOSC is critical to the
development, evaluation and testing of spacecraft and systems to ensure that
space flight is safe for human and robotic personnel.

“Lockheed Martin built this remarkable facility to develop and test spacecraft
systems, further demonstrating our commitment to improve safety and advance
capabilities for future U.S. human spaceflight,” said John Karas, vice
president and general manager for Lockheed Martin’s Human Space Flight
programs. “Our collective expertise in systems integration, planetary
exploration and human spaceflight operations will help ensure success for our
nation’s next generation space transportation system.”

Lockheed is the prime contractor on the Orion exploration spacecraft that can
visit destinations throughout the solar system. The spacecraft includes a crew
module, a cargo transport, a service module for propulsion, electric power, and
fluids storage and a spacecraft adapter for securing it to the launch vehicle. Prep work for the Orion started in 2010.

“Our nation’s next bold step in exploration could begin by 2016,” said Karas.
“Orion was designed from inception to fly multiple, deep-space missions. The
spacecraft is an incredibly robust, technically advanced vehicle capable of
safely transporting humans to asteroids, Lagrange Points and other deep space
destinations that will put us on an affordable and sustainable path to Mars.”

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wrong answer. The shuttle program was designed for payload and redeployment. The ISS could not have been built without it (it carried components from other nations because they didn't have the heavy/bulky lifting capabilities), and the Hubble telescope could not have been repaired without it.

It was a huge step forward in any nation's space program no matter what naysayers say.

Exactly. Despite the shuttles only being "orbiters," they were the next logical step towards developing and experimenting towards a full-fledged, independent "spacecraft."

Granted, the Apollo program had a system of independent modules including a landing module, they were one-time use vehicles that were never indended to be used repeatedly. Thus, the next implied step was to have something that could both carry a payload, and be used again. The shuttle has completely fulfilled that role and has proved the usefulness of this concept in full.

If progress were to made further, and logically, instead of focusing on this "command module" Moon-based train of thought (which really is a step backwards), Nasa should instead be spending money on both a more efficient "Orbiter" that can extend beyond the boundaries of our own binding gravitational field and actually traverse portions of the void with freedom under its own will in a still limited fashion. I'd further that concept by providing it with a more efficient orbital delivery system (similar to what the X-Prize foundation is trying to accomplish) to further reduce costs going forward.

This Capsule program is a step backwards. We need to be going forward but our current administration completely, utterly, lacks the ability to comprehend this. Sure, Bush came up with the Moon concept, but, even still, it is nice to go to the Moon again, but it would be better to go to the Moon with something taking a step past the shuttle, than backwards from it.

It is depressing to think that the majority of humankind fails to even see the potential and rewards that will be achieved from this. This isn't even mentioning the fact that it is a necessity for our long-term survival.

"Nasa should instead be spending money on both a more efficient "Orbiter" that can extend beyond the boundaries of our own binding gravitational field and actually traverse portions of the void with freedom under its own will in a still limited fashion."

If that's what you want a shuttle is never the answer. Then you would be carrying wings, flaps and landing gear with you, which in space is nothing but dead weight. What's the point of that? That's like flying a truck from one state to another instead of just flying the contents of that truck.

Yes, and they miscalculated spectacularly. The shuttle was supposed to be cheap, and be able to fly dozens of flights per year remember? At one point the military was supposed to transition all of their launches to it as well. That never happened. The shuttle is extremely heavy. If if was built as a heavy lift rocket instead it could have carried at least twice the current payload.

quote: What does that have to do with sending a spacecraft beyond earth orbit?

Space travel is still going a round trip procedure the last time I checked. And I'm sure that will continue during colonization at some point in the future.

quote: Yes, and they miscalculated spectacularly.

Since when has a government entity never done that? Remember that design project started on paper just like every other aircraft of the time of the early 1970s. Original concepts are one thing. Realities of the limitations of engineering are another.

quote: If if was built as a heavy lift rocket instead it could have carried at least twice the current payload

Based on what data? And what cubic feet limitations would that "rocket" have had? Forget about weight. Bottom line: the Shuttle program was enormously successful for the time.

Well when you invent a form of propulsion that negates the need for using winged flight for efficient (both resource and cost) ascent or descent, please, let us know. There are many NASA engineers who are eagerly awaiting a means to chops out these "dead weight" surfaces and components.

What are you talking about? All I was saying is that if you want to send missions beyond earth orbit, sending a winged orbiter complete will all the other components needed for a runway landing doesn't make any sense. Why would you launch a shuttle to the moon for example? You'd be wasting something like 30 tons (very rough guess) on parts that you will not need until landing. (and that's assuming they would even hold up to the far faster re-entry speeds on the way back. Winged craft make sense if you're going up and down all the time. They make no sense for anything beyond that. There a capsule makes far more sense.

The whole purpose of migrating to the next step is consolidation and prevention of having to launch first from Earth to move out of orbit to another body... all while using the same vehicle.

Yes, it might not seem "practical" to you at first, but, if you look at the "big picture," in the long run, we don't want to have our spacecraft or particular objectives completely and utterly reliant on the fact that their mission must start, every single time, from the Earth on the ground.

THIS is the true reason for all of this. This is also something that a capsule can not do, at least, in previous capacities. It can not take off, return to earth and take off again--while also being able to loiter in orbit, change orbit--and leave orbit after remaining in a fixed orbit for length of time to another massive body in space... All while being able to carry cargo in a self-contained unit.

The Apollo program was modular, yes, and for the time, it was the -best- we could do. I find it absolutely incredible we were able to go to the moon and back with the technology we had at the time. The next step though is removing the requirement for having multiple parts to do the whole job.

Yes, wings etc, weigh a lot and from a pure cost standpoint, add to the total bill the first few times, but in the long run, building a program on a more advanced concept will lead to economies of scale and cost reductions in the future through findings and discoveries we make along the process leading to an even more versatile craft in years to come.

"in the long run, we don't want to have our spacecraft or particular objectives completely and utterly reliant on the fact that their mission must start, every single time, from the Earth on the ground"

You're not making any sense here. You don't want to launch directly from the ground, which means you want to mount some missions directly from orbit. For that you don't need something that will go from the earth into deep space, you just need something to deliver cargo to low earth orbit. This requires a modular system. Yet in the very next paragraph you say you don't want a modular system. You want one spacecraft that can do it all. Which is it?

"It can not take off, return to earth and take off again--while also being able to loiter in orbit, change orbit--and leave orbit after remaining in a fixed orbit for length of time to another massive body in space... All while being able to carry cargo in a self-contained unit."

Do you have any idea how much fuel and how much energy that would require? Also you just described a parking orbit. That approach has been used since the 60s. But to leave earth orbit you need to significantly increase your speed. Right now it's done with earth departure stages. We aren't going to see the X-Wing with chemical propulsion, sorry.

People like you are killing the space program. You think the STS Orbiter is better because it fits into some idealized concept of space exploration.

Unfortunately the realities of space flight and the engineering and physics involved isn't sexy enough for you.

quote: Despite the shuttles only being "orbiters," they were the next logical step towards developing and experimenting towards a full-fledged, independent "spacecraft."

How? How is adding wings, control surfaces, retractable landing gear and about 30 times the amount of thermal tiles help the STS Orbiter in spaceflight? You do understand that none of those work in space right? Their use is limited to about 30 minutes at the end of the entire flight. All of that extra mass requires extra thrust to get it into space. The only thing those do for it is to make it 're-usable.' That term is used only technically, in that the airframe is re-usable. The rest of the thing needs to be rebuilt after every mission making it take longer and cost more to relaunch than using a new disposable system.

quote: ...Nasa should instead be spending money on both a more efficient "Orbiter" that can extend beyond the boundaries of our own binding gravitational field and actually traverse portions of the void with freedom under its own will in a still limited fashion.

But they can't because you want a horribly inefficient design with grossly inefficient thrust/mass ratio just so it looks cool.

Going back to the Moon is he next step, to establish semi-permanent bases for research and observatories. It's easier to get to, easier to get back from and is easier to exist on than anything else we could possibly get to, this is the test bed for future exploration of the solar system.

The Russians took up smaller pieces. And I intentionally mentioned "other nations" only and didn't reference the Russians.

And yes, we did tethered space walks with the 3-man Apollo and 2-man Gemini capsule programs (Gemini being the first for that). But the shuttle has that cool thing called a robotic arm. And the Hubble's primary replacement lens is 8' in diameter. Not sure how that could have been carried in a capsule rocket, especially with the additional protection gear required of it.

I don't know why you continuously spout stuff that's false when it can be verified with a simple google search. Zarya The very first module launched way back in 1998 was 43,000lbs. It's larger and heavier then most of the modules that followed. It should be obvious that a space shuttle is not required for the heavy lifting. I'll give you the part about being able to bring things back down to earth though. However that capability has not been used very frequently on large cargo.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer